Um., I wasn't. I don't care which math people use, or which math from Singapore, or Russia, or the US, or anywhere. Certainly My Pals are Here is newer than the original Primary Mathematics, and Primary Mathematics was what first came to the US. And what got everyone interested in Singapore Math originally, since it was first published in 1984 and the other two much later. And I was talking about authors, not publishers. Primary Mathematics was written by the Project Team from the Ministry of Education. They all have different authors.That is not to mean that another author can't do a good job too; they will just write it differently, though probably follow the same ideas. Maybe newer authors are influenced by newer ideas in math education. Likely overall better than US math, but maybe it all depends on how it is taught. No magic in any math book. Primary Mathematics has pros and cons, Math in Focus has pros and cons. Marshall Cavendish currently publishes Primary Mathematics and Math in Focus. Frank Schaffer publishes their books along with a publisher called Singapore Asian Publications. There are several series of textbooks used in Singapore, with different publishers, and loads of supplementary books by lots of publishers, so why should any one be more official than any other. There is nothing "official" about any of these,old or new, and I make no claim or assertion about which is better or worse. I was trying to say it was fine to use any supplement with any core curriculum, they won't line up completely.

Well, Frank Schaeffer is not any more or less making use of the success of Primary Mathematics or the Singapore name than Math in Focus. Both are published in conjunction with a publisher in Singapore. Neither was written by Ministry of Education in Singapore like or same authors as Primary Mathematics. So it is likely to have as many goods and bads as any supplement. But also it won't line up exactly.

Yes, both Primary Mathematics and Math in Focus have a publisher in Singapore. That would presumably make them both math originating in Singapore. Different authors. Just like Saxon and Everyday Math are both US math. Although probably there is more similarity between them.

My kids are done with Singapore math, and we used the Primary Mathematics, and it is ahead in some areas but other topics are delayed and then covered in depth when they are introduced, but I have seen parts of the other material, like the practice books and Math in Focus. These are all different and somewhat with different market in mind, I think, and so you cannot really say one is what is in all as far as level or depth, any more than you can say that Saxon levels are just like Everyday Math, just because they both come from the U.S. However, there are similarities, too, as between different US math books.

I don't know anything about beast academy, but I have used Singapore Math. Mental math strategies are sometimes only really applicable under certain circumstances, and you would not apply them under all circumstances. For example, adding when a number is close to 10 or 100, e.g. 98 + 487 = 100 + 487 - 2, you use when the number is close to 10 or 100. The Singapore Math also taught some strategies for multiplication, but again when the number was close to a ten or 100. Is Beast Academy recommending changing 66 x 64 to 65 x 65, or is it rather suggesting this strategy for when both factors are close to a ten? By the same difference?

I have found that no one curriculum is perfect. If you switch because of one problem with one curriculum, it is possible the new curriculum will have a different issue, if that curriculum actually corrects the issue with the old curriculum. Possibly. If remembering mental math strategies over time is a problem, a less expensive means of correcting that is simply to provide more ongoing practice. I think that is what all the mental math pages at the back of the guide are for, and the game suggestions, which you can do at other times than when the material is being taught, plus there are other resources just for mental math. Of course, if there are other things you don't like about a particular curriculum, it could be better to switch. Also, there is nothing wrong with doing the math in a non-mental way when the mental strategy is forgotten, that is why the standard algorithm is so useful.

It is just a guide. You are not even supposed to do everything in it. Just what you want. You should not even have it open during lesson time. Read it to get an idea and do it your own way that fits best with your child. But if you really hate it, do something else.

I think the guide says it makes things easier, but you don't have to, and some children have an easier time when they can use some of the strategies for addition and subtraction. Like counting on or back 1,2 or 3. Doubling and so on. But the more number bonds they know the more facts they know. You have to do what is good for your child. There is no curriculum/guide that will tell you exactly what will work for your child. The guide is a guide, descriptive not prescriptive. When they get to adding past 10, they really do need to know their facts for addition and subtraction within 10 well. I didn't use Extra Practice. I used IP at same level. As a chapter review. I used CP at same level too, but not the whole book or every problem. My child did not need spiral. If he forgot something we just went over it quickly. He did not forget concepts. That is what is good about the program - it emphasizes concepts, not just learning steps without understanding them thoroughly. I don't understand it when someone says, we have not done multiplication for a while, my kid forgot how to multiply. Maybe forget some facts. But not how to do it. Or maybe forgot how to do long division. If they understand the concepts, and have done it with manipulatives, they can redo it in their mind to remember the steps, or a little reminder works. If all they have learned is the steps, or some kind of mnemonic, then yes, that can be forgotten. At some point in math there are facts that just have to be memorized, maybe some properties of geometric figures, or formula for outside angles of a polygon, or like indentity rules for trig, or that tan is sin over cos though you could figure that out. So you memorize that for a test, and then maybe forget, but know there are rules, and can look it up, and know the concepts, and so understand the formula and how it was derived, even though you don't derive it again. I can't keep that all in my head. It seems that can be the same for a child. With the division, they at least are doing it all the way through all the books. So it all depends on your child what you do, and you can get lots of ways other people do it and then experiment.

I don't think the guide was meant to remove flexibility, just provide material as suggestions. Some kids like games, so there are games for them. Some don't, so don't use them. Mine don't. Well, I don't. They have some enrichment material to make the IP or CWP a little easier, but don't do them if you don't need them. There is a suggested way of presenting the material concrete, but the student does not need the concrete, don't do that part. Mine did sometimes, but not other times. We did not use the mental math pages. It is just a guide. Not a lesson plan. No way you should do everything in it the way it is there. No guide can ever accommodate every type of child. I think it is aimed at the middle with some ideas for those on either end. Also to help with those teaching it the first time by giving what the child should know and where it is going. If you find you don't need it or use it, don't get the next one.

I think when kids get older they can explain their thought processes better. And that language skills (which are part of expressing though processes when doing it out loud or having to write words to do so) can develop later than math skills in some kids, and that being forced to write down steps he does "without thinking about them" can kill the enjoyment of math. My son never wrote steps down, though sometimes he had to explain them out loud to me, and by the time he was taking classes at the community college he was quite able to then write the steps down in order to get a good grade. It did not bite him, because he was ready then.

Sullivan Programmed Reading workbooks. Phoenix Learning Resources http://phoenixlearningresources.com/Programmed_Reading-d-list.aspx They were wonderful. Just the workbooks. You don't need all the teacher stuff.

My take, having had my children go all the way through the Singapore Math and into calculus: Use bars if you need them, don't if you don't. They are just a tool. They get overrated at lower grade levels. They are easy enough to learn with the harder problems when they are more useful, so long as you learn a few basics with easier problems to see how they could be helpful. Later, in CWP 5 and 6, there will be problems that if you solve them with algebra you would use 2 equations in 2 unknowns. The bars do help you visualize that, but eventually they will get cumbersome and algebra becomes easier than the bars. They are a good and fun tool for problem solving, but the main goal for CWP should be to think through the problems, understand them well, not just plug in a bar model by some rote type of procedure. Maybe you can start with a bar and then no longer need it for the rest of the problem. Some problems really are easier without the bars. And by the later levels of CWP, some word problems are designed around the bar model; they are certainly not very real-life. Also, some word problems can have a totally different approach using algebra vs bar models, so bar models do not always lead to an approach that you would use algebraically. Except we who are used to algebra try to stick an algebraic type of method and turn it into bars, but a student who has not already learned algebra would solve it a completely different way with bars.

http://oilf.blogspot.com/2011/11/on-edworld-double-speak.html

You can learn "mental math" by rote, and even memorize the strategies or steps and simply follow them. Some programs that say they are conceptual give all the steps, and end up being procedural; the student does not have to do much conceptualizing. A lot of US programs or US-adapted programs seem to do this - lay out all the steps for the student, tell them or show them exactly what comes next, and then practice until they can do follow those steps. Programs that are online or "digital" tend to be like that, I think. Here's the problems, here is how to solve it, go forth and do some more. Though good math students will make the conceptual connection with most any math program. It is whether the student can solve problems he has not seen the same type and steps but cover the same principles or combine concepts in new ways that would determine if there is a conceptual understanding, I think. And whether he can make the next step on his own, maybe with a little help, if the next step really builds on previous understanding. That won't happen if he is immediately given it. So what is a "conceptual" math program? Is it one that tells the student everything? Or one that makes him think for himself, building carefully on earlier ideas? A program that teaches mental math does not necessarily do that, or even just any program now that teaches how to use bar models, because they have become popular. Even those things can be reduced to steps, like some of the steps by step model drawing books I have seen. Possibly it is how a student responds, or how it is taught (by a parent or teacher, not by a book or online program) so maybe there is not a particular program.

As far as I know, the standards edition includes everything required by California state standards at each grade level. That does not mean it aligns strictly. California standards has no multiplication and division in second grade, for example, I don't think.